Sentencing — obstruction of justice

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — obstruction of justice

Where the district court did not make findings of perjury, the court improperly enhanced the defendant’s sentence for obstruction of justice.

“The government argues that any failure by the court to make findings as to the elements of perjury was harmless because the record contains ample evidence that Parker perjured herself at trial. We disagree. This case is unlike United States v. Savage, 505 F.3d 754, 764 (7th Cir. 2007), and United States v. Saunders, 359 F.3d 874, 879 (7th Cir. 2004) (court observed that defendant ‘took the stand and told a lie which no one would believe’), where the sentencing court found the defendant’s testimony at issue was false but omitted findings as to willfulness and materiality, and we found the lack of precise findings harmless. The district court’s comments leave us unsure as to whether the court found that Parker’s denial of involvement in the scheme was willful. As for her testimony about the EEOC investigation, in making findings, the court focused almost entirely on the question of whether her testimony was material, but did not address whether the testimony was false. We do not suggest that the enhancement for obstruction of justice cannot be justified, provided that the appropriate findings are made. But in the context of this sentencing, the insufficiency of the findings about Parker’s testimony cannot be considered harmless, and the obstruction enhancement appears to have been an important factor in the determination of the sentence imposed.”

Affirmed in part, and Vacated in part.

12-1991 U.S. v. Parker

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Pallmeyer, J., Tinder, J.